Global Warming, Is it a Scam?

Re: Global Warming, Is it a Scam?

PostBy: Yanche On: Sat Jun 21, 2008 5:08 pm

Richard S. wrote:
Yanche wrote:The scientist, who publishes his research in a peer reviewed journal? For those of you that don't know peer review means the research is first vetted for accuracy by a range of experts before it's published.


That is where the main issue lies as you have experts on both sides claiming two different things. The media of course hypes what ever the doom and gloom scenario is so that's all you ever hear so the general perception by the public at large is that we are causing it. I know scientist try and claim the high ground on lot of matters but you have to wonder if they don't have their own agendas sometimes.
Sure some researchers do, but a consensus of independent researchers usually gets it right. The key is independent and where they are getting their research money. It can all to easily be like the drug research paid for by the drug manufactures. Especially troublesome when the companies get to edit the report. I tend to look with a cautious eye, but usually trust the mundane reports containing the underlying data.

Within the last year a federal employee climate researcher at Goddard Space Flight Center, her in MD publicly complained about his reports on global warming being edited by the White House. It was being edited by a young political NASA appointee that had no science education at all. Kind of a liaison position between the White House and NASA headquarters. He was just towing the administrations line on global warming. Having worked with Mike Griffin, head of NASA, I told my wife he'll be gone in a week. Mike would never stand for political editing of science data. Sure enough NASA dug up his resume and employment application and found exaggerations and untruths. The government senior service employee was gone in record time. It's unclear if the White House had any objections to his dismal.
Yanche
 
Stoker Coal Boiler: Alternate Heating Systems S-130
Coal Size/Type: Anthracite Pea

Re: Global Warming, Is it a Scam?

PostBy: Flyer5 On: Sat Jun 21, 2008 7:47 pm

It was also on the news that Al Gs home uses the same energy as 290 normal size homes . But yet he is the biggest whiner.
Flyer5
 
Stoker Coal Boiler: Leisure Line WL110
Hot Air Coal Stoker Stove: Leisure Line Pioneer

Re: Global Warming, Is it a Scam?

PostBy: Richard S. On: Sat Jun 21, 2008 9:08 pm

Flyer according to this its 12 homes. Ironic it's a comparison done with Bush's home on his ranch which apparently is very efficient.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp
Richard S.
 
Stoker Coal Boiler: Van Wert VA1200
Coal Size/Type: Buckwheat/Anthracite


Re: Global Warming, Is it a Scam?

PostBy: Flyer5 On: Sat Jun 21, 2008 9:38 pm

But I saw it on The T.V. News .So it must be true . :nana:
Flyer5
 
Stoker Coal Boiler: Leisure Line WL110
Hot Air Coal Stoker Stove: Leisure Line Pioneer

Re: Global Warming, Is it a Scam?

PostBy: coalkirk On: Sun Jun 22, 2008 1:41 pm

Yanche wrote:Well, the issue of global warming is real. WHAT EVER THE CAUSE, doesn't change the facts. Sea levels are rising world wide, in Maryland's portion of the Chesapeake Bay some previously well populated islands have been reduced in sized that they are no longer viable places to live. The residents, while small in number, have had their lives disrupted. The water level in the Chesapeake is rising about twice the rate it is elsewhere, so it's a predictor of what's to come.


I'm not a scientist and don't even play one on TV so I must be missing some law of physics here. How can the water level in the Chesapeake bay possibly rise faster (or slower) than the level of any other water connected to it like the ocean?
coalkirk
 
Stoker Coal Boiler: Harman VF3000
Coal Size/Type: antrhcite/rice coal

Re: Global Warming, Is it a Scam?

PostBy: zeeklu On: Sun Jun 22, 2008 3:04 pm

Maybe the islands are sinking? :D Chris
zeeklu
 
Hand Fed Coal Stove: Harman TLC2000
Coal Size/Type: nut
Other Heating: oil fired boiler
Stove/Furnace Make: Harman
Stove/Furnace Model: TLC 2000

Re: Global Warming, Is it a Scam?

PostBy: BIG BEAM On: Sun Jun 22, 2008 9:45 pm

How many ice ages has this planet gone through.AND for each ice age to happen there had to be a period of warming.I think it's just the pendulum swinging.and for every time the pendulum swings it swings less.Who knows how long man.apes,spiders or whatever will be on this planet but I do know that whatever happens we little humans can't stop it or change it!
BIG BEAM
 
Stove/Furnace Make: USS Hot blast
Stove/Furnace Model: 1557M

Re: Global Warming, Is it a Scam?

PostBy: ken On: Sun Jun 22, 2008 9:53 pm

no need to worry. it's all over on Dec. 21st 2012 anyways. :shock:
ken
 
Stove/Furnace Make: Keystoker - Rice Coal
Stove/Furnace Model: 75K - Bay Window - Direct Vent

Re: Global Warming, Is it a Scam?

PostBy: coalkirk On: Sun Jun 22, 2008 10:29 pm

Did I miss a memo? :oops:
coalkirk
 
Stoker Coal Boiler: Harman VF3000
Coal Size/Type: antrhcite/rice coal

Re: Global Warming, Is it a Scam?

PostBy: gaw On: Sun Jun 22, 2008 10:42 pm

coalkirk wrote:Did I miss a memo? :oops:


You have to start listening to late night radio.
gaw
 
Stoker Coal Boiler: Keystoker KA-6
Coal Size/Type: Rice from Schuylkill County

Re: Global Warming, Is it a Scam?

PostBy: treysgt On: Sun Jun 22, 2008 11:11 pm

I have been interested in the issue of global warming for several years now. More recently I have been convinced that this problem will be self-correcting. Specifically, the excessive use of the automobile and jet plane (and their resultant detritus) will soon dramatically taper off due to the catastrophic demise of the world's petroleum supply. This is the most real and pressing issue now - the ozone and glaciers and polar bears drowning and etc etc are all inconsequential. Any ballyhoo regarding global warming will shortly become moot as we will have fixed ourselves to that regard. The ultimate lesson in macro-economics, you might say..!
treysgt
 
Stove/Furnace Make: Harman
Stove/Furnace Model: Mark1

Re: Global Warming, Is it a Scam?

PostBy: ken On: Mon Jun 23, 2008 2:00 am

Did I miss a memo? :oops: LMAO :D
ken
 
Stove/Furnace Make: Keystoker - Rice Coal
Stove/Furnace Model: 75K - Bay Window - Direct Vent

Re: Global Warming, Is it a Scam?

PostBy: franknbaum On: Tue Jun 24, 2008 4:24 am

ken wrote:no need to worry. it's all over on Dec. 21st 2012 anyways. :shock:

Good no christmass shopping.
franknbaum
 
Stove/Furnace Make: alaska
Stove/Furnace Model: channing III

Re: Global Warming, Is it a Scam?

PostBy: pvolcko On: Wed Jun 25, 2008 1:06 am

coalkirk wrote:I'm not a scientist and don't even play one on TV so I must be missing some law of physics here. How can the water level in the Chesapeake bay possibly rise faster (or slower) than the level of any other water connected to it like the ocean?


Wind. Higher than average rainfall. More flow out of any dams on rivers and tributaries entering the bay. Don't know if any of those are in play in this Chesapeake Bay example, but they all can have a significant impact from year to year.

Yanche wrote:Sure some researchers do, but a consensus of independent researchers usually gets it right. The key is independent and where they are getting their research money. It can all to easily be like the drug research paid for by the drug manufactures. Especially troublesome when the companies get to edit the report. I tend to look with a cautious eye, but usually trust the mundane reports containing the underlying data.


I had a teacher at college that used to work for the NSF on environmental concerns predominantly. He reviewed research proposals, worked on selection and budgeting committees, etc. Also did his fair share of environmental oriented research in his PhD and teaching career. He candidly admitted that there is almost no science (except for so called "hard" sciences like chemistry and physics and math) that can be considered "independent". Of course people are quick to call into question research funded or carried out by corporate entities, particularly those in the energy business (evil polluters! get the pitch forks!). A lot of people erroneously consider federal grants and university funded research to be independent, but the truth is that that money is controlled by a political apparatus at every level. Universities exist as corporate entities, departments function within a budget and with certain expectations. To meet all these expectations the type of research, the theories proposed and advanced for funding, and the choice of people such as research leads all are heavily influenced by these political forces, ultimately resulting in a lot of research and process being bent to satisfy those forces.

The politics at play at the university level are often more along the lines of seniority, visibility afforded to the school by the research, perceived aptitude vis-a-vis the culture of the department or school and how a proposal or lead researcher "fits" into that school of thought, etc. It also extends into more left/right politics as one considers the need for research to appeal to an agency staffed by appointees of a political apparatus (executive and/or congress), operating under a political administration or congressional mandate and budget process and often operating out of D.C. or other highly political environments.

Even peer review and journal publication only gives a limited amount of "confidence" in the work product given that the reviewers are often committed to theories and methodologies of their own, influencing both what is considered worthy of publication and the results of the review processes. Journals, like any publication, also cater to an audience and need to make financial sense, forced that can limiting what is selected and published. Selection and review processes generally are "open" in the same way that the budget process is "open" in congress. Some elements of it are open and known to the public, but a lot of it is behind the scenes and if not exactly secret it is reasonably called "guarded", just as the editorial and story selection/budgeting (as in space) process is at newspapers.

In the end you get science that may have a lot of numbers, and tables, and graphs and facts in it, but "truth" as represented by conclusions, findings, context, and choice of methodology are often compromised and tainted by the political forces that gave birth to the effort and which will be approached to give birth to the next research project.

Where's that leave us lowly citizens being asked to make choices in leadership and policies? Basically up the creek, if you're interested in making the choice based principly on facts or truth. Best bet has been and continues to be to choose those whom you believe have the right balance of the qualities you care most about, whom you believe will make the right choices at the right times for the right reasons given flawed information, competing interests and a unpredictable world.

Sorry for the rant. :)
pvolcko
 

Re: Global Warming, Is it a Scam?

PostBy: Yanche On: Wed Jun 25, 2008 10:23 am

Well said Paul. Since science knows no borders and scientists come from counties with differing political influences and no single political opinion dominates. Except, in the International Space Station, where if you want funding your project had better support the master plan. :-)

As you point out the choice of political leadership is difficult in the best of times. In reality a candidates science position matters little anyhow, except for hot button issues like abortion and energy policy. It's all about issues far less exact than science.

coalkirk wrote:
Yanche wrote:Well, the issue of global warming is real. WHAT EVER THE CAUSE, doesn't change the facts. Sea levels are rising world wide, in Maryland's portion of the Chesapeake Bay some previously well populated islands have been reduced in sized that they are no longer viable places to live. The residents, while small in number, have had their lives disrupted. The water level in the Chesapeake is rising about twice the rate it is elsewhere, so it's a predictor of what's to come.


I'm not a scientist and don't even play one on TV so I must be missing some law of physics here. How can the water level in the Chesapeake bay possibly rise faster (or slower) than the level of any other water connected to it like the ocean?
The rising water level can be different locally because the earth is not a perfect sphere. It's more pear shaped, technically an oblate spheroid. Simple physics can't explain it. See: http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookin ... shape.html
Yanche
 
Stoker Coal Boiler: Alternate Heating Systems S-130
Coal Size/Type: Anthracite Pea